tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 16, 2014 12:00am-2:01am EDT
there are people out there who need but there are also the ones who don't want to give a penny. i'm not saying don't take some if you really needed, but when some of us are in dire need, teeth, glasses, and it's taken away from us and more, they might as well just dig a hole in the ground and put us there. if there is anything us you can do to help your friends up there, thank you. >> i appreciate the comment. again, we have a responsibility as a sovereign nation to our whether it is through medicare, the pell grant program for students going to college, we try to figure out ways for all of us to succeed. i'm the first in my family to get a college degree. i got a lot of aid from the stanford. i worked all four years.
summers i worked construction with my dad. had it not been for pell grants, financial aid, student loans at low interest rates, i could not have gone to stanford. we have to do what we can. the best way to do well abroad is to do well at home. if we are strong domestically, we can be strong abroad. your point is well taken. we are a country for a reason. hopefully by our example and with our assistance, we can help others do it well also. right now, especially since we're barely coming back from that deep recession, it's time to really make sure that we take care of folks in america who work very hard to build this country. i don't think we will ever shirk our responsibility around the world, i do think we need to be very smart about how we do things.
whether it is iraq or people who come to our border, we have to do this the smart way. we don't want to give the wrong impression of what we are trying to do whether it is an iraq war kids at the border. thank you for your question. before hunter, let me pick out a couple more. it's pretty random, right? ok, so the next three after hunter, liz amsten? i always seem to pick you. jesse borden and then luis perez. presente? ok, in the back. hunter, go right ahead.
>> i listened to your little presentation on the economy with your graph and everything. this thing about the $800 billion bailout, i think people are a little tired of these stories. the economy is not recovering. the bailout was not necessary. it did not work. the country is in a mess. what i would like to ask is if you look at china, china's economy is booming. they want people to think all that china is doing is building a housing bubble or something that they're building infrastructure, highways, railroads. they are mining helium.
a lot of americans don't know what that's about but it is fusion energy. obama is shutting down our space program. why don't you demand that obama get the hell out of there? we need a president like the kennedy who says we're going to go to the moon and do things big again. if we had a driver like kennedy to land a man on the mountain, we could change education, industry. that's how to get the economy going. alexander hamilton knew how to finance industry. i would urge you to study this. you have opposed glass-steagall. we should have passed that instead of bailing out the banks. >> hunter you've raised some good points. again, try to be concise. i apologize.
these are great questions and i wish i could dive in and talk about it because that's what makes this job interesting. that is a recovery. as robust as it should be? absolutely not. on that bailout for wall street, i voted against it. i do believe we needed to do something. i just don't believe because it gave too much at the banks when they decided to take mortgages all over the country in slice and dice into little pieces and combine them and make them into stock so it takes real estate whereas before the bank used to lend you money and they would hold that mortgage and you would pay on it. for the life of the mortgage, you have the same lender because the bank held at.
so long as you were paying, they were ok because they were getting good interest off of you. someone on wall street got clever. what if we took all of these mortgages and packaged them together and now instead of one mortgage for $500,000 it is 1000 mortgages? you cut it up and you say, wall street, sell this little piece of that package for x amount of money because it is backed by 1000 mortgages. and that's what wall street did. it took all of these mortgages, some good, some horrendous, and it sold them out there in the market. when people started saying they could not pay because interest rates have gone up, they realize their houses were not worth what they thought it they could not make the payments anymore.
the banks could not pay on that stock anymore because they were not getting the money. that's what led to the crash and that's why you saw all of these homes just plummet so quickly. all of the paper was bad. all of the mortgages were terrible. the stock backed up by the mortgages was even worse. i said to the president, then president bush, and my democratic leadership, if you want me to vote to give $800 billion to the folks who essentially helped maneuver this crash, i want to make sure the money will get down to the people, the decent people who are trying to buy a home. the market was crazy. i was looking to help my grandparents buy a small house in eagle rock. $679,000 for a two bedroom, one bath house. a lot of people bought thinking
that's what the market was today. these are not people saying they were making 30 grand a year and there were a lot of them, too, which is what really led to the downfall. the money was all going to the banks. there are a lot of people who said i have a mortgage valued higher than what my home is valued at that i made commitments on going to continue to pay my mortgage. even if i sold my house i would not get enough money. to me, those people were being very responsible hoping with time the value of the home would catch up to the mortgage. to me, we should help them. you're paying that mortgage at 7% interest rate? guess what, let me let you refinance. you still have to pay on the value of the mortgage but at a lower interest rate so let me save you money on the interest
and the banks would not renegotiate. they would not renegotiate because they could not. why? they no longer on the mortgage because they had sold at off to the stock market in 1000 little pieces. they had to get all of the owners of the mortgage to sign off on the renegotiated rate and they couldn't. why am i going to give the bank for money, this $800 billion? they are not going to do anything to help the homeowner who wants to be responsible. how do i know we are going to get repaid? we ultimately did recoup that money but in 2008, there was no guarantee, no mandate they had to pay back. banks are always going to make money. i wanted to see two provisions, one to help the homeowner and a guarantee that banks would pay back every cent of the $800 billion.
in terms of going to the moon and mining, the president is doing everything he can to get us to renewable energy. i'm with him going toward solar wind and all of the different energy sources that are clean. you can see what happens when you rely on petroleum. when iraq goes haywire, our prices at the pump go haywire. we should not be dependent nor do i think we should have to wait to extract, suck the shale out of canada, and let them use a pipeline going through america to go to the shipping ports in louisiana so they can ship the oil to china and other countries abroad never leaving a bit of oil for the u.s. to use. they want to use american soil for the pipe so if some
terrorist hits it, we suffer the consequence but all of the oil gets sold abroad with not a bit of it for the u.s. i don't think we need to go to the moon to be innovative in what we do. i think the president is trying in that regard so, hunter, i would disagree. the bailout was not the best way to do things, but i will admit even though i voted against it that it did help stop the hemorrhaging. i want to see peaks in job creation as big as the valleys. that would be a true, robust recovery. they cannot just be modest income jobs. there is more money parked on the sideline by corporate america today, over $1 trillion, in cash that they are waiting to see where to put it, where to
invest. we could jumpstart the middle class if we did this the right way. let's go to the next question. liz, you are on. >> i would like to point out that of those negative job losses, most of the increases are minimum wage. >> you are not seeing the recovery where the guy who lost a job is getting a job back who paid the same as the job he lost. it's tough. >> a lot of problems in 2008 and subsequent were caused by wall street and the banks. where do you stand on putting forward a policy to nationalize banks that take money from the government in the future because they are too big to fail? how about setting up public banks like in north dakota? how about supporting elizabeth warren's suggestion on allowing the post office to be a bank for
basic banking services? this will really help the consumer. >> as i keep trying to say, the engine of our economy has been, is, and will be for quite some time the middle of america. rich folks could only buy so many yachts, right? it is middle class america that buys the new clothes washer. son, daughter, i will give you the seven or eight-year-old car and i will get myself that little brand-new vehicle. those are things that turn the economy.
while the middle class has some disposable income, it does not have enough that it could just the hogwild. the other two demographics, rich or poor, they could only stimulate the economy so much. middle class, you get them going, we are in good shape. in the 1950's when all of those servicemen and women came back up to world war ii, they needed something to do. we did the g.i. bill and we got them educated. then when eisenhower was president he said we would never face a situation where we were not prepared. we're going to build a highway system connect the nest every part of the country so we could never be caught offguard. guess what? a lot of road construction workers went to work. my dad. he was busy with highway 5, 99. he had worked all the time
except for when it rained. he was not making a whole lot as a laborer. yet a sixth-grade education and he got paid about $14 per hour with benefits stable enough for nine months that he could take care of us. as i said, i got to go to college because of that. how many road construction workers do you know could send their kids to stanford university? that's the difficulty. we have to get to the point where we honor the middle class. we look at them for what they are, the jewel. it is the largest segment of america. if we make them feel like they can afford to get that clothes washer, interest rates will go up and that's ok because i can afford to get the car now that i need.
that's what keeps the economy going. in terms of how you handle the banks, i want to be a little realistic. i'm not happy with the big banks. i told you i voted against the bailout. even though people would say to me, xavier, you are endangering the economy, the banks always get what it needs at the end of the day. the odds are always stacked against you if you go to court against the lender. the creditor has you by the neck. to me, the banks don't have a right to control our lives but they're very important because we see what happens when they would not lend. when they are afraid of the economy, when the banks get a cold, we get the flu. we don't need banks that get so big and so loose with their cash -- not their cash, your cash -- that we cannot control.
we need to make sure they do not go hog wild. they were essentially in vegas on wall street with your money. they should not get to do that. if we could put restraints on them, the banks did not even know how much value they had and some of the stocks they had purchased. they were betting against themselves, these hedge bets. they would put money down and had spent some of their investments were going to lose. if they did lose on the investments, they are ok because they had to do against the loss. it's crazy. i agree we need to do something with is why we have credit unions. it's why we started savings and loans. we have to have a financial system that works for everyone especially small businesses. without the line of credit emma it makes it very tough. let me go on to the next question.
jesse, luis, and i'm being told we are pretty much out of time. 10 or 15 minutes away. i will pick a few more names before i go to you, luis. where are you? >> i'm here with a group but i'm also a constituent of yours. i live in mount washington. i have a short time and followed by a question. our group, we continue to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform but we also understand in light of the fact that it is a civil system that some of the reform can come in changes in policies and procedures. immigration should not be a punitive decision but one that makes it possible for all people to comply with the law. what i want to ask you is we would like to get more detail, if possible, about what may be coming in terms of administrative relief.
>> i've said this before and you're probably read, seen, and heard about this on the whole immigration issue. you know, it's more a political issue more than it is a substantive, mechanical issue how you solve it. the senate four hundred days ago, more than one year ago, back in june of last year, passed a bill that dealt with every aspect of immigration under the law. they went through and looked at this. the proposed tweaks and it was comprehensive. it dealt with the whole issue of border security trying to up date, innovate, new ways of doing things are you would not
just have to put a whole bunch of bodies on the border trying to do it that way. we have technology to help us address some of these issues. it dealt with the issues of the says whether for family unification or work purposes and it tweaked the system to be smarter going forward depending on our needs as a nation. it tweaked the whole system about dealing with people in the work lace. what drives this is at the end of the day, these folks are getting jobs. why are they getting jobs when they don't have the right to work? there are employers who are hiring them. the legislation dealt with the work lace so you would only match people who have the right to work in the country with people who are going to check to make sure when they hire you
they are doing it the right way. it dealt with all of those things. that was the bill. remarkably it got 68 votes out of 100 in the senate. it was a bipartisan bill and it passed. for 400 days, it has languished in the house because house republican leadership will not allow us to have a vote on the bill. many of us proposed and authored a bill that is almost exactly like the senate well although we tweaked it. we cannot get a vote on that though. we need 218 to pass. we have about 200 now. with 18 more members, we could pass that bill. we've been told by the congressional, the cbo, the nonpartisan neutral referee telling us what bills cost or save to have a sense of what we're doing, it would save us close to $1 trillion because it would essentially get rid of some much of the underground economy that so many of these
folks live in in the shadows. it would put them in the overt, the public, economy because they could no longer pay them with cash and therefore not pay taxes that go along with it as well. we cannot get a vote on that hill. the president has taken some steps of administrative leave where he can. the president does not pass laws. the constitution says only congress can pass laws. the president has the right to use his discretion on how we execute the laws which is why there is now this lawsuit against the president which is a crazy thing but the house has now sued the president for trying to enforce the laws. i have limited resources on immigration.
we have border patrol that is four times what it was when i came to congress in the 1990's and doubling in the last 10 years and size. quite honestly, they've done a pretty good job in the recession help as well to stem the flow of people coming in the country without documents. there are ways to make it work better. i can only have so much money. i'm going to enforce the broken laws, i'm going to try to do it the best i can. easy give me resource money to deport them because they are here without documents, let me go after the criminals, the drug dealers, guys trying to do us harm before i go after the kid in school who might be the valedictorian. the president opposed a program called deferred action for children, daca. kids who were brought into this country usually through their
parents when they were very small and have spent most of their life in this country and most of them do not remember the home country they came from. many have gone on to be valedictorians and many are going to great universities. rather than go after those folks and trying to hunt them down, let me have down the ones trying to sell drugs to our kids. he's using his discretion on how to use the resources to deport people in the country without documents. that is the use of executive discretion. the president has said since house republican leadership has told us last month that they will not pass any immigration legislation for the remainder of the year, the president said ok, i waited in your request to see if the house would pass a bill
so we could reconcile differences and get a bill that finally, i statue, fixes the broken immigration system and you are now telling me you're not going to do that? i'm going to do what i can within the confines of the law to use my executive discretion to try to implement the law as best i can. the president right now is reviewing what he can do using his executive discretion to make immigration laws worked as best as possible. what might he do? he might try to do some things that diverged or redirect resources away from -- again -- going away from the mother trying to buy groceries and go toward the guy trying to recruit someone to be a gang member. when you're going to find disease going to target as much as he can towards those who are trying to do us harm.
it's going to be somewhat imprecise. how many people will it help? it's very unclear. how far can it go? he cannot change a lot. he can only enforce the law using his discretion. the program, daca, the deferred action program for these miners who are right now not going to be pursued for deportation is only temporary. they are still subject to deportation. at any moment the program could be canceled. those kids are now out of luck and they are back again in the deportation line. he cannot change the law but changes how to enforce it. they want to go after the guys trying to do us some harm. hopefully what will happen is we will pass a law to make it very clear who will earn a chance to
stay and who will not. rather than going after people where if we had passed the law you would have been able to stay, let's focus on those we need to get out of the country as quickly as possible. i took too long. luis, and before you go we will pick two more names and then we will close for the evening. estella lopez and, batting cleanup, jim duree? you will be our last question her. luis, estella, then jim. >> good afternoon, congressman. we believe in the rule of law. we do not support weakening laws
to protect children in the heat of a short-term crisis. we ask you to keep intact the trafficking law from 2008. >> this is the law that deals with the border kids, wilbur force blah blah law passed in 2008. i want to make this clear. it was passed in 2008 bipartisan. your to bush was president and he signed it. but it essentially says is for children, if we find that they arrive at our border and they are unaccompanied, we are going to try to figure out what's going on so they can come to our border. you may not remember but in 2005, 2006, 2007 and finally in 2008, a lot of kids from china were coming in these container
cars on these big cargo ships. inside, these human traffickers -- a lot of times sex traffickers would oftentimes put little girls in these cargo containers and they would ship them on boats as if they were part of the freight and they would pay off people and get these kids and put them into sex trafficking essentially slave conditions in the u.s. we saw that smuggling going on. everyone came forward and said we cannot do this go on. we have to go after these guys trying to smuggle in human beings. most of the kids were coming from the asian countries overseas and it was just under severe conditions. can you imagine the long trek all the way from china and a cargo container you cannot get out of?
the wilberforce law was passed for that reason. because most of these kids did not know english -- they did not know what their circumstance was going to be -- we provided them with legal assistance to see if they make a claim where if they got shipped back they would not be persecuted or killed. that was the reason for the wilberforce law. some are saying we now need to change that to not provide the some are saying we now need to change that to not provide the due process for those children if they come on accompanied. they said we should process them in five to seven days. if you are saying please don't change that law, i'm with you. i don't believe we should be eliminating due process because we want to have the system move aster. the way you have it move faster
is to get rid of the bottleneck. don't make it to where it take so long. you can give these kids chance to make their case without having to strip them of some rights to make their case. i'm hoping what we will do is figure out that we can do this the right way but do it quickly to prove it to the world that if you have a real claim, we've always been willing to take a refugee or someone seeking asylum but it has to be a real claim. after luis, estella then jim. >> i am so glad that you are here. we get a lot of information and you are doing a wonderful job. >> i asked her to say that. >> no, no. that's not true. >> i heard on the radio, i think t was this week, that social
security by the year 2023, there won't be any. we think it want happen, but my worry is that a lot of people re on social security and they say where we only have so much money and they cut it in half. america is not the way it used to be. we know that and we understand t. we have been here many years. i worry because our nation is pushing many states down. they are losing their homes. there's no jobs, no money coming n.
on the other hand, china is out orking us. many people were having a good time and others are dying because there's not enough help or them. i wish i could say more but thank you very much for verything. >> i usually take a little longer than i should on social security because i hate rumors about social security. let me start out by saying his. social security has a challenge facing it in the future. i don't want anyone to think i'm trying to say that everything is hunky-dory. social security is not going ankrupt. it is not broke.
it has never once -- not like some of these banks, not like enron or worldcom, failed to pay in full and on time to every single american who worked in his country and retired or became disabled or the surviving spouse or child of someone who worked in and paid in. never once has it failed to pay those benefits in full and on time. in those 78 years we have gone through 13 recessions. he last one, really bad. in the height of the recession when we were losing 800,000 jobs in one month, every single american on social security got their social security check. let me give you the simple math on social security because it really is simple. you can check and you can ask my office and i will send you the information.
i'm not making these numbers p. i may miss it on the hundreds of thousands or millions, but i will be pretty close to accurate on the billions and trillions. in the 78 years that social security has been around, how much have we contributed to social security? remember. it's not free. we make a fisa tax contribution every paycheck. our employer matches that, 6.1% we get taxed and six point 1% our employer. it's not free. we pay for it. how much have we put in? bout $15 trillion. i may be off a little and i probably have the number in my note book, but about $15 rillion. don't try to figure out how many zeros are in there. it's a lot. every math equation as more than
one variable. how much have we expended in the 78 years? how much is social security paid out to either you as a beneficiary or feared the administrative costs for the 78 years of administration for tens of millions of people? ow much? about $14 trillion. i know the math is tough but i think you can do the subtraction. $15 trillion brought in minus $14 trillion sent out. what does that leave you? $1 trillion. $1 trillion of your taxpayer money, your parents, your grandparents, your kids that has never been spent by the social security system.
social security ain't dumb. that money they have been collecting in excess of what they send out. they don't just put it under a big social security mattress. it is in t bills, treasury bonds. the people who say there is a fiction and the trust fund and its funny money, you pay this. social security gets that money. the treasury says here's the social security money we got for this month. treasury says thank you. here are treasury bonds to replace the cash you just gave me. treasury bonds earn 2% interest, not much. how much has the social security money we've not used over this last several decades earned in nterest? lose to $2 trillion.
how much today is in reserves in social security that has not been spent that is available? close to $3 trillion. social security is not broke. there's a challenge. i see the challenge in the room. i am the challenge as well. i'm a member of the baby boomers. there's a whole bunch of us. we are retiring now -- not me, not yet -- but we are getting close. we did not have that many ids. o we don't have as many people working paying into the system for social security and now with this big blip of baby boomers retiring, all of a sudden it's a little offkilter. we need more people paying into make up for all of the people retiring. in about 20 years, the $3 rillion in surplus will be
otally depleted. what happens the day after we use up the last penny in the surplus? social security continues but it will now be based only on what americans working paying their taxes contribute in along with their employer. how much would the day after we use the last penny in the urplus trust fund provide? through what taxes collected? about $.75 on the dollar. today if you receive social ecurity, imagine in 2034 someone who would want to get essentially 100% of what you are getting would only get about 75% of what you are getting. as ms. lopez tried to make lear that's tough. as the challenge we face. it levels off.
it does not keep going downhill. what happens is the kids today who are working and now watching their parents and the baby boom generation retire, remember that they will start to retire. it will be a bigger population now than the relative size of the population working versus the baby boomers so it levels off. no one wants to get $.75 of what people today are getting on $1. our challenge is to make sure we weak it. we've got 20 years to do it. we want to continue to give a robust retirement benefit to those who work and paid for it. how do you do it? it's simple math. you either increase the inputs are you decrease the output. inputs -- tax or other types of revenue. outputs -- benefits. some people say to raise the
retirement age. people get money later in life so that means you pay less enefits over time. that's one way to cut benefits. some way to change the cola, the cost of living increase, so you reduce payments as they increase to keep with inflation. that's a cut in benefits. some people say to remove the cap on how much people have to pay in, how much of your income gets taxed at 6.1% taxed at about $117,000 in income. > let's say make $117,000. every single penny will pay 6.1% in fica. warren buffett makes more than 117,000. he stops paying once he has paid on the first $117,000. everything after that, however tens of millions, it is all untaxed because there is a cap.
it is very simple, inputs or outputs. it's going bankrupt. e should let you have your own private account. essentially, you get to put it n wall street. by the way, you know how much you pay in fees for your social security system to work? ess than 1%. i know a lot of you have 401(k)s, financial advisors, have you checked how much they charge on a monthly basis to dvise you? i guarantee that means they are talking to you every month. they still charge or fee. you know how much? at least four or five times more than what social security charges to manage that money for
60 million people. one last thing, on top of the fact that it's never failed to pay on time and full through the 78 plus years it's been around, it's not just a retirement benefit. it's not just a pension plan. it's better than a pension plan because you cannot outlive social security. you can outlive your pension. that is the commitment that every generation behind your has made. you work for this country, you ay, we guarantee for your life you will always get social security. he matter how long you live, you'll always get social security. no pension in america tells you that. but people don't recognize is there are a lot of americans today who are not retired getting social security. why? they were the children or spouse of an american who worked and paid in so they get survivor
enefits. you get disability benefits as well. it is a pension plan, life insurance policy, disability policy wrapped in one. go price that out in the private sector marketplace. go to any insurer and find out how much they would charge to provide with disability, life insurance, and a pension annuity. find out how much they charge and comparative social security and you'll see why it's the best deal this country has ever made to americans. women, you should attack anyone who tries to privatize social security. women outlive men by several years. majority of women rely on
social security for more than half of their retirement income. by the time to get into their 80's, it is almost 100% of their income because they have out and whatever meager pension they may have had and they begin to rely almost exclusively on social security. when mrs. lopez says she's concerned about social security getting cut, this is what's oing on. the people who should defend social security more is not mrs. lopez but everyone in this room under 30. i guarantee you don't have the type of pension plans that my dad had. he had a defined benefit land which meant you contribute into your pension and it defines how much you will get when you etire.
now we have defined contribution, the 401k, the ira. you put in a certain amount and you're not here and to do certain amount in your retirement. it's only guaranteed how much you have to put in and the rest is up to the stock market. if you put your money in enron, you don't get a whole lot back. more and more, you'll find a lot are relying on social security for retirement income. if we're smart we figure out the right mix of input and output -- revenue and cuts -- to keep social security stronger kid to believe they will see martians before they see their social ecurity check. if we do that it would be good for all american. a told you i would go long on that. on the ranking democrat on the social security subcommittee and hear from so many seniors who say, i got this letter in the mail asking me to send $15 per month to help send my social security and they just get ripped off. it just burns me when i get that ind of stuff because most of
these people are on fixed income. shame on anyone who thinks it's ok to do do pay senior into sending them to inbox a month. --shame on anyone who thinks t's ok to dupe a senior. that's just not the way you do things. we should send a border patrol gent after them. last question. forgive me. we ran a little long. jim, close us out. ake it a good one. > can you hear me? ok, great. the issue that should be on everyone's minds nonstop is that we are currently marching into global thermonuclear world war iii with russia and china. obama, the bush crowd, cameron in britain, the queen and so on are hysterical that the british empire, wall street, is ollapsing and that russia,
china, india and others, the bric countries, are building a new system for the future. what the bric nations are doing are setting up a new monetary financial economic system to finance infrastructure development all over the world. my friend hunter mentioned the chinese moon program. russia has a similar one. obama says that we've been to the moon and we are not going ack. he also says we do not need fusion power and other newfangled technology. that is obscene. john kennedy is rolling over in his grave at obama's statement o that effect. i'm not kidding about world war iii. it is the assessment of the russian government that obama and company are going to try a hermonuclear showdown like the
cuban missile crisis very soon except these clowns around obama think they can win a nuclear war. a are nuts. hey're fascists. what's going on right now in ukraine proves it. i met with staff people here in los angeles and you probably got a briefing on it. i spoke to your legislative irector back in washington and also a lady who is your foreign-policy adviser up in the caucus office, a turkish american lady. what a laid out then before the nazi coup d'etat, this is what is coming and it has to be stops. -- stopped. >> i need you to go ahead -- >> john brennan, obama's cia has now admitted to senator feinstein and other senate
intelligence committees which have been investigating criminal activities of the bush cia -- >> i need you to get to the point. >> brennan has now admitted that contrary to his earlier testimony the cia has been spying on senator feinstein, her entire staff, her entire colleagues on the senate intelligence committee. now what do we have? obama says he has confidence in our cia director -- >> give me your question. >> are you going to impeach this nazi s.o.b. like a real democrat r not? >> i'm not sure who the reference was to but i hope it's not people who have elected to office. i don't think that's an appropriate way to refer to
anyone who has been elected to office so i will not grace that comment with a response other than to say elected office is not easy. i'd tell you that as someone who has now served for more than two decades. think the president is trying as best he can. i think george bush did the best he can. i disagreed with some of the things they do, but i do not refer to them as you just did. in this country, we are fortunate he can get to say that because we have the leaders who have allowed us to protect the constitution to give you that right. trying to respond to your point -- let me respond to your point. jim, my sense is this -- how can i say this? it's a dangerous world.
there's a lot going on right now in the world that we cannot predict. we, ourselves, by ourselves, cannot control it whether it is ukraine, syria, iraq, north korea. the situation in central america that we can see from these kids oming as desperate as well for different reasons. i did not get elected to tell you that i want us to be the cops of the world and not get paid for it. we are out there and a lot of places around the world. e have our armed forces, a lot of work that's being done, which i think is important, but no one ever pays us for it. we foot the bill for all this stuff. for making the world a little safer, someone should pay us a little more when our troops are out there. someone should pay us for this more. how many people did we have in the korean peninsula? i have not seen a check. i believe the u.s. has a major responsibility around the world because we have been successful, and everyone looks to us. we have responsibility to lead, but we do not have to be
suckers. some degree, i agree with the kernel of what was said, in that we have to understand what we are facing. i think i diverge from jim another point you made, so let me try to summarize by saying his -- on syria, i told the president that if he was going to go in and use our military, because the syrian government -- proof that the syrian government had used a chemical weapon, that i would support that. i have never been a big fan of using our military unilaterally. i voted against the iraq war for that reason. to me, it was important to make a point, that if we had proof that someone had used weapons of
mass destruction and we said that is a no-no, then we got to show them it is a no-no. while i am not a fan of using military by itself, i was ok with the president to use ilitary force. you try to use a weapon of mass assertion and you are going to pay the price. f i could just finish. my point is the same now with regard to ukraine, iraq, i look at things a little differently from syria. iraq to me is not a country. it is a sectarian opulation. as i have said before, the day i see a sunni arab soldier defend a -- a sunni iraq soldier defend a shia iraqi civilian or a shia
iraq soldier defend a sunni iraq civilian, i will consider it a country. right now shia defends shia, sunni defends sunni, kurd efends kurd. we just saw what happened in fghanistan where the afghani military could not provide the security whether its soldiers were who they said they were. until those countries want to be more responsible for their future, i am not interested in investing american lives, as several thousand have done in afghanistan and iraq. we talked about that in veterans affairs and health care.
we got to be smart. we're never going to lose our role in the world to try to help bring prosperity to other countries like ours. t the same time, he have to be careful how we use our military and our forces. to respond to jim, what i would say i think the president is trying hard. i think he recognizes when you got soldiers who have served there, four, or five tours of duty, it is time to give them -- a rest. unless iraq can give us something to prove that they deserve to be defended, i will wait until the next civil war. in ukraine, the russians are going hog wild. that is in their backyard. if something were happening in our backyard in this western hemisphere, what would we do? would we allow mexico to eeter?
would we allow the dominican republic or haiti get into a crisis? i suspect not. we invaded grenada, and so the ussians fear what is going on. maybe not legitimately. but you got to get inside that brain, because i want to get inside that brain before i send troops to defend somebody i do ot understand. i have had to present flags to the spouses of fallen soldiers. it ain't fun. t ain't fun. nd i'm going to make sure that if i present a flag to the spouse of a fallen soldier, it is going to be for a good reason, so i can say to that spouse, your husband, your wife died for your country and you should be proud, and i'm proud of what he did. i want to make sure i can say that with my heart fully behind t. jim, i do not agree with most
what you said, but if i can agree to which you it is we have to be smart with the way we use our power and we have to be smart how we help the world and cannot be duped into thinking just because we're the biggest power in the world that we should get involved in everything right away. with that, you have been great. we went longer. i thank you so much. we would again. a thank you all for participating. thank you c-span for coverage. you all have a good evening. >> on the next "washington journal" retired colonel cedric leighton talks about the u.s. response in iraq. then larry sabato who heads the center for politics at the university of virginia. and we'll look at recent events in ferguson, missouri those protesting the fatal shooting of a teen michael brown. schneider sflider --
joins us. we'll look for europe comments at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. coming up next, a look at the role of race in the midterm election. then c-span's american history tour on the civil war. later house majority talking about the state of congress. the asian american journalist sociation in -- held its annual convention. they talked about communities of color are being courted by republicans and democrats. this is about an hour.
>> welcome to the viewers of c-span. for viewers out there, let me us.oduce we are an organization a specialist of students across the u.s.. we have got a chapter in asia. welcome to our convention. the midterm elections are in full swing. democrats and republicans are fighting for control over congress, the senate in play. theeying is underway for 2016 race for the white house. our panelists this morning will be looking at the election race andhe prism of the countries changing demographic. i'm the lead reporter and a
special reporting project based in nebraska for enhanced coverage of those of color and the lgbt issue. serving on the panel this morning we have got christine aen, executive director of national nonpartisan group that works to engage asian americans in the electoral process. david covers president obama and the white house for the washington post. he is also part of a washington, d.c. chapter. she covers politics in the midterms and the presidential elections. she is also past president of the national association of hispanic journalists.
our next guest covers politics for the washington bureau papers that include the miami herald and the kansas city star. by the way, a few numbers before we get started. u.s. population is now 17% latino and asians about 6% and black 13%. meanwhile, the number of whites is falling and accounts for 62%. that is that backdrop to our discussion. minuteshave about 40 and we will take time for some questions from the audience. we are hoping to engage that panelists here in a conversation . feel free to interject and asked questions of each other. we will see the questions for guestsguess -- for the until the end of the program.
give overview of what has happened so far in midterm elections and how the battle between democrats and republicans might discuss issues for interests of communities of color? morning. the midterm election isn't until november, but we have had profound changes in congress, particularly the house of representatives. he have any major change in the house with eric cantor losing his virginia primary. he lost his majority leadership position and step down and later left congress. that was one of the biggest changes. other than that, the house will likely remain in control by republicans. but action is really in the senate. you have a bunch jockeying. you have open seats graded by retirements, particularly key democrats like rockefeller and
messed -- in west virginia. carl levin in michigan, max baucus, who went on to become president obama's ambassador to china. those are open seats and create some openings for republicans. for the republicans to gain control of the senate, they have to have a net gain of six seats. right now polls indicate about nine races are considered tossups. there are some openings there as well. it is not going to be easy. the republicans have not won a net gain of six seats in years. i think it dates back to 1980. they have some advantages in four of the states, the states president barack obama lost in 2012. they're making the race a referendum on president obama both on domestic and foreign-policy.
there has been a lot of stuff in the news about the situation overseas in syria, afghanistan, iraq. his poll numbers are going down, and republicans see opportunity with his down the poll numbers. it looks like it could be trending in the republican direction. you can never say never in an election. republicans are feeling relatively confident, particularly some republicans in the senate who survived what they thought would be difficult primary challenges. you had cochran in mississippi who survived a pretty ferocious tea party supported challenge, and he came down to a runoff. it came down to cochran having to court the black vote, which made a major difference in his prospects. mitch mcconnell would be the senate majority leader if he wins his race in november. is race is considered by some
polls to be a tossup. he might not be the majority leader because he might not be in the senate. he is well-funded. he is a savvy campaigner and he is well organized. the likelihood of him losing -- it could happen. we will put it that way. he is a fierce campaigner and a strong campaigner. he has a democratic challenger who is making him work for it. senator pat roberts in kansas recently survived a primary challenge, people who were taking him to task for not spending enough time in his state. you have all these balls in the air right now in the senate. it is trending towards republicans. anything can happen. some races people thought were going to be closer right now, democrats are breathing a little
bit easier. al franken in minnesota has a difficult challenge. his numbers are looking better. udall in colorado has a difficult challenge. he was thought to be one of the more endangered democrats in polls. a tough race is north carolina run on, kay hagan. she is in a challenging race in north carolina. the democratic party is infusing her race with cash, i believe $9 million. that is a race that them being the democrats are fiercely defending. mary landrieu in louisiana faces a difficult race. she has been campaigning very hard on what she delivers to her state, hoping she can avoid losing in november. if she doesn't get over 50% in november, avoiding a runoff in
december. what does this translate to in terms of issues concerning people of color? you have got some members of the republican party who are actually courting the african-american vote and the hispanic vote rather actively. you have a concerted effort by the rnc to court the african-american vote. this is a legacy of the 2012 race, where they found their numbers with african-americans -- obama got 96% of the black vote. their numbers with hispanics were rather disappointing. they're making a hard effort to court that. in the african-american side of the ledger, not necessarily to win the african-american vote -- that is a solid democratic lock -- block. they like to cut into that lead
a bit. if they can cut into that lead, that can make things difficult for candidates at the margins. with the hispanic vote, it is a bit more complicated. you have an instance where the republican party is divided on immigration. some members of the party support comprehensive immigration reform. some members don't. you are getting a mixed message that some hispanic voters are finding difficult to decipher. that is the pie they have to slice up. where it leads in november, it will be interesting to see. there are several issues at play in congress that affect people of color. you have the voting rights act. the supreme court last summer issued a ruling which crippled some segments of the voting rights act.
that has to be addressed. the court put the onus on congress to address it. there are bills in congress to fix the voting rights act. eric cantor wanted to have that on the house floor by the end of the year. those bills had moved nowhere in the house or the senate. some republicans in congress feel what the supreme court did with the voting rights act is fine red some democrats were reluctant to sign onto it as well. that needs to be addressed. immigration reform is still up in the air. it is unclear whether or not that will be addressed. this year, it is unclear. it is a very hot political football. no one knows where it is going to go right now. everyone agrees it is going
nowhere. with that, i will take it over to my white house colleague. >> let's take a look back at whether president obama delivered for communities of color, what were his key successes and failures. he is the first president of color. who knows when we might have another one in the white house. did he deliver for them? >> we are all breaking the cardinal rule of washington, d.c. in august, which is not talking about politics. [laughter] we are supposed to be on vacation. i'm trying to keep it short so we can have a lively discussion. to follow-up on bill briefly, the white house recognizes the challenges right now. they are well aware of the danger they have of losing the senate. it would make president obama's life much more difficult. if you lost the senate, it would be even harder and you would
have trouble making the case is how is he the only one not willing to take any action. they are the bad guys, we are the good guys. that is the argument you will be hearing. yesterday i was asked -- i was busy on a story about whether president obama had addressed what is going on in ferguson, missouri directly enough, whether african-american communities believe the president had felt the pain of what is going on in their community. it is a question that has come up repeatedly with this president. the african-american community -- the support is very strong for this president among african-americans, but they have high hopes for him, higher than everyone else. the danger for the president is to let down some of those hopes. he did cannot yesterday and address in a way what is
happening in missouri. he did not talk about race to correctly. he did address the need for society to come together and justice to be done in that community. when you look back at the legacy of this president, they would say they took over a country that had a lot of problems. the economy, two wars, and that is what they had to address off the bat. it is what the president says he has accomplished maybe foremost for african-americans and other groups. the economy has improved, in some ways. the president has done a lot to make that a part of his first-term agenda. they recognize there are still a lot of waste to go, jobless numbers coming down. there is still frustration in the communities that the job remains higher, much higher for
african-americans and other groups. hispanic voters -- 70% voted in favor of the president during the same with asian communities in 2012, really hurting the romney campaign. at least for hispanics, they believe the president would do something on immigration. immigration is a big one. our latest poll in "the washington post" shows the hispanic party very frustrated with both parties for immigration. they believe the democrats have not come through. the president will talk about health care as being something else he did. hispanics believe the president -- he pushed it hard on his second term. our latest polls show hispanic'' approval rating dropped to 54%. the president's ratings have
plummeted across the board. that is twice as high as the overall average grade that is a big statement -- average. that is a big statement. the president is going to announce a major effort on immigration through executive action. democrats, there are some concerns that immigration will not play well in the 2014 campaign. a lot of states bill talked about do not have a lot of hispanic or asian voters who care a lot about this issue. the president will probably go forward with this right before the election. democrats hope it will inspire progressives to come out. overall support for the president remains strong.
minorities in particular have an even higher bar for this resident. he still needs to match it, particularly in some instances with hispanics and others, he still has interesting decisions to make about how he will be seen in his legacy going forward. >> let's move on to michele. we are talking about a lot of our immigration here. the latino voters are the big prize for both parties. latino voters are expressing disappointment over the fact that immigration -- changes in immigration policy has not happened. how do democrats get them back in, and how do republicans make stronger inroads to the latino vote? >> thank you for inviting me. it's great to see such a
terrific turnout this morning. i think there are a couple of things happening, and it has to do with the fact that there is a big slice of latinos that are certainly up for grabs. it is not a coincidence that this is a swing demographic. supported george bush 40% in 2004, then swung over to obama in the 70% area for 2012. both parties are making a concerted effort. what the midterm elections are all about is going to be turnout, and whether latinos are going to turn out for the midterm election. there are not a lot of races where latinos are going to make a difference, and that adds to the frustration in no small measure because of the way the
districts were redrawn after the 2010 census. some groups are challenging that very there is a challenge going on right now in florida to redraw some of those districts. whether in fact they will impact the midterms clearly remains to be seen. the frustration among latinos is very high over immigration, and also the way the central american children are being treated. the rhetoric that is going on, the bill that passed the house, which stripped out $3 million or $4 million for legal representation for these children, many of whom are
applying for asylum. there are very few resources available for attorneys, and there is not going to be any more coming. the process -- the republicans voted to expedite the process. as rnc growth and opportunity, both for 2013 which was the so-called autopsy done after the republicans -- after romney's loss in the 2012 election said, quoting, if a hispanic american perceives that a gop candidate does not want them in the united states, for example, it will not pay attention to our next sentence. it does not matter what we say about education, jobs, or the economy if hispanics think that we do not want them here. you have this dichotomy going
on. you have congress sending this clear message, we don't want them here, then we have the libre initiative, an organization being funded by the koch brothers, who also founded a number of conservative causes, who are trying to make inroads into the latino communities in several targeted states in order to bring them over to the republican party and get them to embrace conservative causes. latinos are fiscally liberal, but they want the government -- they want to know the government is there to help them if it is needed. at the same time, they are socially conservative. hence the swing voting,
depending on where the candidates come down in the spectrum on which issues. with all of that said, it may very well be that for the democrats, there really hasn't anything been done on immigration. they need that turnout in order to retain the seats they have and not lose any more ground in the senate. however, the 2010 trend for hispanic voter turnout actually increased. if that trend continues, there is possibility that they could -- the turnout would increase, and they could have an impact.
with that said, we're only talking about an increase of 3% in 2010. we will see how that impacts. that goes against a presidential trend where the rates of latinos voting actually declined between 2008 and 2012. we will see what happens in 2016. >> we have christine chen, the executive director of api vote, a national nonpartisan group that works to engage asian americans and pacific islanders in the electoral process. christine, you are looking at this from a different point of view. you are looking at it from the ground up. you're part of the grassroots
network trying to engage voters out there. if you might be able to describe how difficult it might be these days to get people engaged. >> for the asian american, pacific islander community, two thirds of their community are first-generation immigrants. not only are they learning this new process, we are also seeing a lot more barriers as election laws and voting rights laws change in each of the specific states. as that continues to change, there needs to be more outreach into the community in regard to the basics as far as, how do you make sure you get registered. let alone, the whole idea about motivation and the frustration that the asian american pacific islander community has in regard to immigration still being stalled. for us, family reunification for the community has been a top priority. we saw that in our 2012 postelection polling as well as pre-election polling as well. >> do you think that the news
media, your fellow panelists, are they doing enough to engage people and are they writing about the issues and concerns that will get them to the polls? pick on them individually. [laughter] >> with dave, i actually knew him back in the day, when he was a "washington post" beat reporter. we address the whole issue about a headline called [indiscernible] for me, some of the relationships have been long-standing. there still needs to be a lot more work that we do in this industry to include api stories in the greater context. whether it is immigration, discussions, in terms of the coverage of the elections -- one of our frustrations throughout the years is that we are all
safe -- always missing in the data. in 2012, a number of organizations put in resources to conduct our own polling. without some of that data, there would be no news coverage. >> in 2012, asian americans, despite our low numbers overall, actually made a difference in two battleground states. in fact, a lot of newsrooms, including mine, did not do any stories until after the fact. how do you think, switching back to an earlier question i asked, how do you think the white house and this president of color -- how well has he done, addressing
the concerns of the aapi communities, african-american communities, and latinos? >> symbolically, it really has shed light to our community in terms of being able to feel that person of color and one of us could serve as president or serve our country in a variety of ways. he has done a great job in terms of appointments. the first term he was able to appoint three asian-american pacific islanders to the cabinet. we currently have zero. that is the first time in over a decade where we actually don't have aapi represented in the cabinet itself. when he first started, there was only eight on the federal bench and he has tripled to 25. there continues to be frustration in regards to
immigration. in terms of staffing, it has been a lot more positive. the white house initiative on asian-american pacific islanders was an initiative that was renewed by the president, and expanded their jurisdiction where in the past, it was only focused on small businesses and economics, but now it has been expanded to a wide range of agencies all across. >> the president has roots in asia, in the asia-pacific. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> he has roots in hawaii. in addition to other things, i cover what the resident calls the pivot to asia. he talks about the place of asia as something that is important to him. he is trying to do this thing
where they shift the foreign policy away from the middle east and europe to asia as part of [inaudible] he has a lot of interest in that. that is not necessarily register among asian-americans. i think it was a story that i quoted you in -- i was a reporter in loudoun county, virginia, "washington post" -- 1998, i guess. the lyrics were going on and i covered education. -- olympics were going on and i covered education. if i remember, you were head of the chinese -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> we did a story. the editors had no idea what i was talking about. i ended up running it.
-- they ended up running it. they did not edit a word of it. >> you also knew your demographics. now we look at virginia, loudoun county, the electorate represents a 14%. there is a growing population there. >> immigration -- there is 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants -- i think a million of those are of asian descent. the latino community is interested in the -- the undocumented population is huge. there are huge waiting lists in asia to come here. the philippines may have a 20 year wait list. when i covered immigration out of the white house, i get a lot of stories about the latino
point of view. i started calling up asian groups involved in this and ended up having a big story that they cared about something else, which was this legal immigration system. most of the debate was to move it away from what asians cared about, reduce some of that and put it on business visas and get them on board. it became a big issue with asian groups. >> [indiscernible] just overstay their visas, never came back. i want to go back to something bill had mentioned earlier. you said he had to reach out to
the black population. mississippi is considered one of the most -- >> it has history. because his race was tight, the cochrane campaign with the help of establishing the republican chair in d.c. made a concerted effort to reach out to african-american voters who responded -- >> but how? how do you talk to people who have not trusted an entire party for so long? how do you get them back? >> i think the carrot was, look at the guy cochrane is running against. >> true. >> apparently that was enough.
did not like cochrane's opponent. they saw -- some african-americans saw what they saw in the 1960's in the opponent. after cochrane had won, you're still getting some blowback that some group said the election was stolen. the opponent said he wanted to have an investigation for voter fraud. the rules of the election permitted african-americans who were mostly democratics to vote in that primary, and they did. they felt they voted their interests. that was a motivating factor. will that translate to other republican races? unclear. this was a unique situation that happened in mississippi. it could happen in other states. the african-american community new cochrane -- knew cochran. african-americans overwhelmingly vote democratic. you have some instances in some
states where they might like their republican congressman or their republican senator. it is not unusual in a state race or a senate race to have a republican that has african-american voters. african-americans are not a monolith. you mentioned hispanics are fiscally liberal and socially conservative. african-americans could almost be seen in the same light, which also has appeal for the republican party. if you look at the legislative history, remember that african-americans voted for george wallace in his later days. african-americans voted for strom thurmond in his later days.
it happens. this was different. it was unusual, but not unique. >> we are also seeing some similar tactics being used in other races, for example, the republican candidate in illinois is targeting african-americans a way cochrane did in mississippi, and also tim scott is targeting latinos in florida in an attempt to reach the governor's mansion. picking a few off here and there, and they add up to big numbers, which is the obama strategy. >> prince reavis has made a concerted effort to woo american
voters. they have people who go into states and train republican candidates to interact with african-american voters, to go into african-american churches, to learn how to ask for that vote. they realize they are not going to get -- they will not win the african-american vote, but if you can pick off a few -- the perfect example would be the bush campaign in 2004. i forget what his overall african-american numbers were. i believe he got 14% of the african-american vote in ohio, which was a deciding state, and the reason why he got such a high african-american vote in ohio was that i believe at that time there was a gay marriage referendum. it goes into the african-american conservatism at that time. you had a bunch of gay marriage referendums on the ballot in several states in that election year. it worked very effectively in ohio. >> i know since 2012, our organization has been contacted
by the rnc. they have been asking for information, data, and in terms of the issues that we care about and where our communities are organizing. i also view it as, they also have a lot more to go. they just started to higher and asian-american staffer right after 2012, while the democrats for over a decade they have always had a staffer at the dnc. in terms of political pacts or organizationally where there are staffers of asian-american descent working on the different campaigns, the democrats have a long list of resumes and folks that they can tap into versus the republicans are just now starting to build that. ultimately, it is also going to be about the issues and how they address that and where they vote in terms of representing our communities. there is hope in terms of the
aapi, because 47% of our community does not necessarily identify as democrat or republican or conservative or progressive. once again, the democrats right now, for those who do identify with a party, they have a 2-1 edge -- >> but there has been a strong trend towards democrats. the republicans in georgia age. bush, he won the asian vote. now, we are talking about three fourths of the asian vote for obama. michelle, we have got two high-profile senators who are ambassadors. we're talking about ted cruz out of texas and marco rubio over in florida. you would have thought that their ascension would have perhaps translated to more votes from the latino community. >> no, it hasn't happened and is
unlikely to happen. marco rubio's numbers among latinos are very poor. as the african-american community, it's not monolithic, neither is the latino community. we come from 23 countries throughout latin america and the caribbean. some of us have strong ties to the united states because we have been here for six and seven and eight generations. some of us got here 10 minutes ago. some of us are fluent in english. some of us speak no spanish. some of us are bilingual. some of us are monocultural from our native countries. some of us are 110% u.s. because we speak in bush, we are american, we have assimilated. that is the spectrum you are dealing with. that is the spectrum that
marketers are trying to figure out how to attract. our buying power is in the trillions. we are a force. but right now we are very fragmented, and it looks like we will be that way for quite some time here in ted cruz and marco rubio, who are both cuban, have a very, very different experience than most of the latinos in this country. most of the latinos in this country are of mexican origin, something like 64% -- mid 60's percentages. that is a very different experience from the cuban experience, many of whom came in in the 1960's as a result of special immigration status which continues to this day.
not so for mexicans, who -- a huge chunk of this country was once part of mexico. culturally, language dominant terms of history and culture, there are ties that remain very strong. those two experiences are very different. the mexican experience, which is the bulk of the latino community here, is not necessarily related culturally to rubio and to cruz. >> you also look at what happened on immigration day. rubio -- >> and cruise as well -- cruz as well. >> it came to the idea that if a republican could eat through the primary of 2016, it would be helpful if they were in some favor of immigration that would help them in the general election.
a bipartisan group of senators really went after rubio, recruited him and said, you have to be part of this. you're the young face of the party. he went for it. >> he's also mentored by jeb bush, who has been a huge proponent of immigration and continues to be. >> the minute the thing passed, rubio's poll numbers among his base plummeted. ted cruz is one of the strongest anti-immigration voices. this is a dichotomy for all republicans. you said bush -- he has been better in terms of being more program, but he's not in office. >> picked up on the outreach issue. we had a poll -- mcclatchy -- looking at the potential publican presidential
candidates. there were some interesting numbers regarding ted cruz and rand paul. among tea party support, cruz's numbers shot up. i think he was at 15%. paul's numbers strong. in april, he was down to 7% or 8%. paul's decline as he is may be making a move to become president, he is spoken more about issues of voting rights for felons.
he spoke out about the use of over militarization in ferguson. he he has talked about reclassifying -- some demeanors. that is costing him some among tea party support. >> let's save some time for questions. 30 seconds each, please. looking forward to the 2016 election, who do you think has the best chance for energizing communities of color in this race for the white house that is developing. >> for a candidate? right now, if hillary were to run -- it is more of an infrastructure. we have already seen aapi's rating for hillary, and pac's, other organizations building around that. >> difficult question. the republican field is so wide right now. it is hard to pinpoint who does what. >> was someone like christie,
for example, would he have a better chance than cruz or rubio? >> in my 30 seconds which have now gone down to 15 -- christie has a greater appeal to mainstream republicans than cruz does at this point. so, maybe. >> what a non-answer. [laughter] >> michelle? >> it is too early to tell. there are going to be a lot of ups and downs. let's just look at hillary clinton at one point she had -- last year there was a poll that was done -- god knows why -- she had 60% of hispanic support. and then she talked about sending the central american kids back, and was tone deaf on immigration, and her numbers are
now down in the 20's. there's lots of room between now and next year for numbers to rise and fall. >> bill clinton. [laughter] or joe biden. it is hard to tell. we talked about jeb bush could he is still more moderate on immigration and maybe has support in florida. it is hard to handicap. >> a cautionary tale about your question. prior to the 2008 campaign, hillary clinton was polling 60% among african-american voters. and she did not quite make that. [laughter] at that time, a lot of african-americans did not know who barack obama was. he made up a lot of ground in a very short period of time. >> we know who he is now. let's open up for questions out there.
we probably have time for a couple of them. anyone? anyone? >> don't be shy. [inaudible] >> you're a journalist. >> [inaudible] why is it that asian-americans have not broken through? there are very few politicians that have broken through. [inaudible] what does it take for the asian-american community to break through for politicians to talk about it, and then journalists? >> it has been exciting to see a lot more energy in organizing from the asian-american pacific
islander community for the midterm elections. usually midterm elections, we see a different turnout. we see a lot more activity from our community. there's a lot more tighter races, especially on the local level. we are seeing where in the past, elected officials do not have a strategy to reach out to our community that the state legislators are actually noticing because of the population growth in terms of the activity in organizing from our community, and we are seeing that having them influencing congressional members as well as eventually the presidential campaign. as we see nevada and virginia
and florida continue to be battleground states, our population is growing there as well. as we move forward, between -- a number of work is being done by our community in terms of increasing voter registration and participation, to finally have a data around our community so we are demystifying about how to outreach to our constituent group. >> any other questions before we close the session out? right there. >> i know we talked a little bit about how fragmented the hispanic voters are right now, but when asian-americans get that politician who rises through the ranks, do you think that our population will also be as fragmented and it will depend on which country they came from? do you see those problems in our future as well? >> overall, in our 2012 postelection polling, we saw the large support for president obama and also in terms of heavily democratic. even in terms of the vietnamese
population who traditionally vote republican, we also saw a shift in that in the 2012 polling. that is another reason why the republicans have been doing more work in terms of our reaching. that is a red alert to them if they are losing the vietnamese population as well. in the latest ucla polls almanac, there are now 4000 aapi elected officials and those appointed on different commissions. we are seeing a lot more engagement in terms of even running for office and being appointed. that also energizes our community and creates a pipeline
in terms of folks that could be in other offices as well as political appointments. >> one more question, if there are any. >> again, for you. does the fact that there is no unifying language in the asian community -- the set play a big factor in our influence in politics [inaudible] >> the reality is that when you are running a campaign, you are really looking at your local base. when you are looking at a campaign in virginia, you may be focusing more on the korean, vietnamese, and indian population versus in minnesota, it would be the month population. it goes back down to knowing your audience locally and doing that. >> with that, i would like to thank everybody for coming to our session. thank you to christine chen, bill douglas, michelle, and david. and thank you to viewers at c-span for joining us this
morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] c-span will have more on the midterm elections on "newsmakers." talks abouthriock the number women seeking .olitical offices "newsmakers" here on c-span. fridaye next four nights, c-span travels around the country to discover america's historic places and hear from the places and people that shape the nation. and it is focused on the civil war focusing on the battle shut-in of the -- the battle of chattanooga.
civil war era medicine and more. in 1863, union and confederate forces fought for control of chattanooga. after an early confederate battle, union troops are victorious at the battle of chattanooga. they took control of the city. one soldier called it the death of the confederacy. c-span spoke with the park park. at the national >> the chattanooga region is one of several parts that could be said to be the time -- this was a region of divided sentiment. it was a growing -- cheryl base. states decidedrn
makeave the union and their bid for independence and then were joined in the spring by the other south states including tennessee, this region was one where the national division played out on a local area. the population was very slick and divided over whether or not to stay in the union to protect southern rights or to depart the union, to depart the constitutional protection to make a bid for the protection of southern rights by forming a new separate nation, the confederate states of america. there are literally were troops raised from here on those sites. chattanooga was important from the beginning of the war on because of the intersection of the railroads here. there were four rail companies
operating. they do that to take a stand age -- to take advantage that allow the passage over, beyond, or through the appalachian mountains here on the southern end. chattanooga was important initially because so many southern soldiers going to fight for southern independence passed through chattanooga on the way to if they described the early seeds of war somewhere in northern virginia or along the border. chattanooga is important increased as the war lengthened as well. the new confederate nation realize that if they were going to be successful in winning their independence in maintaining it, they had to develop military industrial capacity to produce the war material their soldiers needed
to fight and win that independence. that military industrial base goes to create an dislocated in central alabama. chattanooga became more important as a union target. it was the doorway, the passageway through the mountain barriers that in union hands could then allow a union army to thrust into the industrial heartland. the union advanced out of tennessee have an been gone from nashville and now they're going towards chattanooga. the advance from the northwest from tennessee coming in over the mountains to the northwest of chattanooga and literally threw maneuver by threatening to climb over the mountains to the southwest chattanooga. they force them to abandon the
city of chattanooga. cityll union occupied the and the two main armies meet in the bloodiest conflict of that campaign and thought about dozen -- s and in the valley the union army succeeded in that battle. while defeated, they range to withdraw and go into chattanooga. the fortified themselves within ande square mile area awaited the arrival of reinforcements. while the confederates attempted to lay siege to the union army in chattanooga from positions along missionary ridge to east of the town from across the valley between missionary ridge to lookout mountain and on
lookout mountain itself, the final battle in the overall campaign force chattanooga and thatinal battle is the one unfolded along missionary ridge. the sharply defined ridge line to where we are located right now. along which the confederates have had their main decision throughout late september, october, november. 48 hours before the fighting on the ridge itself did the confederates attempt to build fortifications along the actual track of missionary ridge. therefore late on in the grant takeslysses that decision to send it union troops against missionary ridge directly east of us here in what he intended as a limited assault against them at the base of the ridge.
those union soldiers were dancing with less than an hour and a half a daylight remaining that day. move forward and very few of them knowing anything about grant intention for their assault. the move forward and believe that they are simply attacking the confederates along and on missionary ridge. the move forward and find confederate work scum particularly those on the ridge in the four position than they find places were confederate fire cannot cover or get to them as they work their way up the side of the bridge and in a remarkable scene, union troops would penetrate confederate line on missionary ridge multiple points of most of meeting a slate and send the confederate army retreating from missionary ridge to that east and back down into georgia. on november 25ss and a brief pursuit on the 26 and 27, chattanooga is firmly in
union hands. it will be turned by the union army over that coming winter into a giant supply base that is similar to our board and operating bases today and it is from chattanooga that following spring that they will take a combine union army and advance from chattanooga and and disrupted and destroy much of it, and bring the war to a close in the spring of 1865. observers and participants at the time believed that union success here at chattanooga was a signal of alternate union success in the war. some has said this was a death knell of the confederacy. chattanooga remained in union hands from their seizure of it in this campaign in 1863 onto
the end of the war. and in part because it was a union base and garrison town in the last year and a half of the war, it allows a number of individuals from the north to come to chattanooga and began exploiting the resources that are in this greater chattanooga region. even before the war was over, chattanooga's industrial segment of its economy that was beginning to grow just before the civil war actually gets reinvigorated in the closing months of the war, and then will boom in the late 1860's and 1870's. then willr, and boom in the late 1860's and 1870's. we are located right now and what is known as orchard knob, or more specifically the orchard knob reservationch